Contractors in Iraq

Posted on by

A recent posting was about Iraq after American combat troops withdrew in December 2011.  I was curious how many contractors remain, and there are some interesting web sites that provided details. One is a primer for someone who is going there as a contractor, and it contains information about the risks and how to prepare yourself to deal with them.

Some of the risks to the contractors are kidnapping, unexploded ordinance, and being shot at. The advise for avoiding kidnapping is to have “…a camouflage passport, which is a faux passport ‘issued’ by a non-existent country. Camouflage passports are used to throw off terrorists and abductors, who may be looking to single out a person from a specific nation.” The advice for unexploded ordinance “…is to stay well clear.” The advice for what to do if you are shot at certainly makes sense. It is to “…move and move fast.” Life insurance is highly recommended.

NPR estimates there are 15,000 workers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and several consulates, which makes it the largest U.S. diplomatic operation abroad. There are as many as 5,000 security contractors carrying assault rifles and flying armed helicopters. There had been as many as 17,000 security contractors the year previously. One official responded to a question about what the contractors do if there is an attack. He answered, “We run. We go. We do not stand and fight.”

Events involving U.S. contractors in Iraq since the troop withdrawal do not bode well for diplomatic relations between the two countries. A New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt and Eric Schmitt published in January 2012 describes how Iraqi authorities had detained “…a few hundred contractors in recent weeks…” The detentions were mostly at the airport in Baghdad and at checkpoints around the capital. My interpretation of the full article is that Iraqi officials held up the issuing of visas, weapons permits, and authorizations to drive certain routes and then detained the contractors for failure to have current documents. The contractors were held for as long as several weeks, and some were told to leave Iraq or face arrest. Another ominous signal was that the Maliki’s son began evicting Western companies and contractors from the heavily fortified “Green Zone.”

Why would anyone want to work as a contractor in Iraq when there are so many risks and now the Iraqi government is actively working to make those people less than welcome? The answer is, of course, money. There are reports that the guards in private security firms are paid between $400 and $1000/day. I’m not certain either of those amounts would justify the risks, but some people apparently think they do.

I remain baffled by the events in Iraq. I certainly believe all the polling data that most Iraqis resented the presence of American soldiers, although I also believe that most of those soldiers would have much preferred to have been somewhere else also. They were there because their commander told them they had a mission to make Iraq safer for Iraqis. They gave the Iraqis the chance to make that a reality; although it isn’t yet certain the Iraqis will actually take advantage of the opportunity they have been given.

There were many accusations that the Iraqi war was really about the U.S. coveting Iraq’s oil. We apparently didn’t do a very good job of grabbing that oil while our soldiers were there, because it is estimated 90 percent of the government’s income is from oil. That income depends on tens of thousands of foreign workers.  Mr. Maliki is apparently more interested in solidifying his standing with Iran than making workers providing the money for his budget comfortable that they will be safe.

Maybe it is true that the Iraqi War was a mistake. Maybe they didn’t deserve the sacrifices of our soldiers, their families, and the rest of our country. I’ll say again that Iraq has been given a wonderful opportunity to make their country into a peaceful place to live because of American and English blood and treasure. We’ll see what they ultimately decide to do with that opportunity. I’m not optimistic that their current leader is interested in more than corruption and abuses of power while bowing to the Iranians. I hope I’m wrong. Our dead and injured soldiers and their families certainly deserve a better outcome.

The Righteous Mind

Posted on by

Reviewed by Kathy London

This book by Jonathan Haidt is sub-titled “Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion”. This strikes me as one of the most important social topics today. I found the book to be enjoyable and accessible. Haidt’s style is conversational, with little jargon. I got a real sense of human beings, not just data. If you find your blood pressure rising at some points, you’ll be happy to know the book lays out the evidence in detail and is thoroughly footnoted so you can do your own evaluation.

I’ve often listened to pundits on cable-TV ask “why?” Why is the political opposition so hypocritical, so biased, so wrong? Haidt argues that disagreements do not reflect good and evil – the “other side” is composed of good people with something important to say. He hopes to give Americans a new way to think about politics and religion, to drain the anger and make conversations more civil, and more fun. I think this is important, so this article is both a book report and a review.

I suggest you read the introduction, at least the “What Lies Ahead” portion. While Haidt draws heavily on science, his message can be found in ancient texts: Whether an 8th Century Zen Master Sen-ts’an: “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against”; or a more familiar quote: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3-5.

Haidt draws on everything from philosophers to bumper stickers to illustrate his points, but the book’s core is data-driven. He says that hypotheses are cheap; theories are useful when tested, supported, and corrected. (You can participate in the research at the YourMorals web site.) My own style tends to be analytical, so I appreciate this approach. I enjoyed reading the many psychology experiments, though if you don’t need to be convinced of a particular point you could skim them. Each chapter ends with an “In Sum” section. You might want to read the chapter summary first, and then decide where you want to read carefully. You may even want to read the “Conclusion” chapter first, so you’ll know where to watch for surprises.

A lot of animal analogies are used in the book. One favorite says we are each a passenger riding on an elephant: the elephant is our intuitive reactions and the rider offers post hoc rationalizations. The title of the second chapter says it more simply: “The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail”. This tail does not wag the dog.

On religion, Haidt shows how our obsession with righteousness is the normal human condition. It has produced large cooperative groups that kinship would not justify. Religion is not just “believing” but also “doing” and “belonging”. He thinks the “New Atheists” miss the point that religion has helped people create communities with shared morals that reduce violence and cruelty.

Haidt describes “moral capital” as an “interlocking set of values, virtues, norms…and institutions” that mesh with human psychology and “enable a community to regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible”. Everyone understands economic capital – the things we need (money, tools, and workers) to produce goods and services. Moral capital is also needed for successful individuals, companies, and communities. Conservatives understand this better than liberals and detect threats to moral capital that liberals do not see.

The core of the book is the Six Moral Foundations. Think of them as analogous to taste receptors in your tongue. Everyone has the same taste receptors, but we don’t all like the same foods. Similarly, everyone has six “moral receptors”. But we don’t all rely on them to the same extent or in the same way. Here, I think, is Haidt’s explanation for why people are “hypocritical”. What triggers the foundations, and to what intensity, is complex and intuitive.

Care: People despise suffering and cruelty. We want to help the under-dog and the victim. This foundation is so strong, we even apply it non-human things, such as baby animals.

Fairness: People have a deep, intuitive sense of karma; rewards and punishments should be proportional to actions. We will punish a cheater, even if it means harming ourselves. (I found the studies demonstrating this to be especially interesting.)

Loyalty: People trust and reward those on their team, whether the team is a small group or a nation. Traitors are viewed as worse than enemies.

Authority: People respect hierarchy. Authority must take on responsibility for order and justice in society. We should fulfill the obligations of our place within the group. This sort of awareness is even encoded in some languages that have different verb-forms for polite and familiar speech.

Sanctity: People know that some things are noble and pure, others are degrading and base. Sacred values, including symbols and ideas, bind groups together. This can be expressed through traditional religion, but also through other concerns, such as for the environment.

Liberty: People hate bullies. Powerful elites must know their limits and authorities must earn trust. We are vigilant against signs of tyranny and will band together against illegitimate restraints.

People who identify as conservative, liberal, or libertarian share these foundations, but rely on them to different extents. This is where the book begins to feel important and not simply interesting.

Libertarians are most sensitive to Liberty, to the extent that they call on the other foundations very little. But markets really are miraculous. They bring supply, demand, and ingenuity together, and the rest of us should listen.

Haidt says he is a liberal, so he spends time analyzing where liberals go wrong. Liberals are most sensitive to Care, Liberty, and Fairness, but willing to trade fairness to protect victims. In their zeal to help victims, liberals often push for changes that weaken groups and actually hurt the people they are trying to help. Yet, liberals have some good points. They are experts in Care, and see the harm done to individuals before conservatives do. Some big problems really can be solved by government regulation.

Conservatives use all six foundations, which Haidt says gives them a political advantage, makes them more numerous and more likely to understand others. They rely more on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity than liberals. While they are willing to trade care of individuals for other foundation values, they protect communities we all need to thrive.

Liberals and conservatives are more akin to yin and yang than good and evil. We need both perspectives, not just to be fair, but to create a successful country. To understand others, Haidt says you must consider all six Moral Foundations and which foundations relate to a controversy.

Haidt discusses where Americans have gone wrong in political life and how to address the issues. (Haidt presents more on this topic, including disagreements with his views on the CivilPoltics web site.)

Social relationships are necessary for people with differing foundations to trust and listen to each other. Haidt shows how, since the 1960s, Americans have been losing their social relationships across liberal/conservative groups. Political parties have become more purely liberal or conservative. Technology and lifestyle changes have been isolating: if you want to find people who voted for Obama, go to Whole Foods. If you want to find people who voted for McCain, go to Cracker Barrel. This kind of alignment of politics with seemingly unrelated views has always puzzled me. Haidt shows why this is so.

Friendly relations, commonality, and trust make it easier for people to listen to each other. Establish bonds with people before you try to convince them your position is right. You might both see the issue in a new light. Conversations might become more respectful and more constructive.

Haidt offers us this advice: “If you really want to open your mind, open your heart first.”

Iraq after American Troops

Posted on by

I’ve been reading about Iraq after American combat troops withdrew in December 2011.  The common criticism of the Iraq war was that it was “about nothing but oil,” and there is some interesting recent news about Iraq and oil. An article by Kay Johnson in the Associate Press titled “Again a power in OPEC, Iraq could shift landscape” reports that Iraq has been rapidly expanding oil production. The increase in oil being produced in Iraq is likely to complicate OPEC’s efforts to influence world prices.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki leads a Shiite-dominated coalition that has close ties with Iran, and Iraq is officially backing Iran’s push to set lower production limits to keep oil prices high. However, it is countermanding Iran’s desires by expanding oil production. “Iraq recently reached production of 3 million barrels per day, a level not seen since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein. It is on track to become OPEC’s second largest producer in the coming year, surpassing Iran and trailing only Saudi Arabia.”  It is estimated that Iraq could double production, which is the basis for the predictions of Iraq’s increasing influence on OPEC and the world.

What this means in Middle East and world politics is complicated. The increased economic clout available to Iraq from oil production (which provides 95 percent of government revenues) could result in economic prosperity and freedoms previously unimagined in that country. However, strife between the Sunnis and Shiites continues to be a problem. Shiite pilgrims trekking toward a shrine in Baghdad were recently attacked with car bombs. There were 93 people killed and 312 wounded according to an article from Mohammed Tawfeeq of CNN.  June 14 was the deadliest day in the country since the U.S. withdrew its troops.

I’ve posted several recent reviews and blogs about the Iraq war. The blog posting on June 13, 2012 has the comment, “…victory will not come from the service and sacrifice of the soldiers who fought in Iraq. That will happen, if it happens, within the culture of Islam. The soldiers have only functioned as the soil for the seed of freedom. The ultimate victory, if it is achieved must happen within Islam.”

Terrorism in Iraq is no longer justified by the presence of foreign soldiers. Now the people of Iraq have to decide whether indiscriminate killing of civilians based on how they worship is justified. I suggest they look at the genius of the American founders in insisting on allowing freedom of religion. I would speculate that any reasonable person would conclude that the “American experiment” resulted in a life style for citizens that the rest of the world envies. I see from afar that Iraq is at a crossroads, and I sincerely wish the best for them.

Cheesed Off

Posted on by

Tinyonline explains that the idiom is Royal Air Force slang meaning bored, disgruntled, or disgusted. It came from a description of a metal object that has rusted. That appearance reminds of cheese that has turned brown during cooking and the sourness of cheese that has gone bad.

Blood Stripes

Posted on by

This is the best book I’ve read for some time. The descriptions of experiences of four non-commissioned officers in the Iraq war were informative and deeply emotional for me. I’ve read some of the Amazon reviews. There were a few complaints about writing style, but I don’t agree. The writing engaged me and made me feel connected to the experiences of the warriors described in the book.

The first learning experience for me was the origin of the title, and I was confused until I searched “Blood Stripes” and found a photo on Wikipedia. The “Blood Stripe” is a red stripe (varying in width, depending on rank) that runs down the outer leg of the dress uniform of noncommissioned and commissioned officers of the Marines. The “Blood Stripe” is described as being a tribute to the unusually high casualty rate of Marine noncommissioned officers and officers during the Battle of Chapultepec in Mexico in 1847.

The learning certainly didn’t stop with descriptions of Marine uniforms. The “Author’s Notes” tells me that “…Iraq is an Arabic word, (and) the English equivalent has no proper pronunciation: the closest would be ‘eee-rock’.” The word derives from the Arabic urug, which means “root.” Adding a letter from the Arabic alphabet arrives at the translation “Root of All.”

Much of the book is about the warrior culture of the Marines, and the first chapter is titled, “Go Tell the Spartans.” The quote immediately after that title is “I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are. The Marines are extremists.” Recruiters for other military services promise education benefits, the possibility of world travel, and excellent retirement benefits for those who stay long enough. The Marines were and are promised intense physical training that many will not be strong enough or have enough stamina to withstand. They are promised that if they could make it through training they are likely to have multiple deployments to live in primitive and very uncomfortable places where other people were trying to kill them. The book “Gates of Fire” by Steven Pressfield about the Spartans who all died together at Thermopylae is described as the unofficial Marine Bible. Marines are promised they will be expected to fight and die together like the Spartans. The Marines described in the book dealt with the risk of death by considering that they already knew they were going to die, although the men did worry about masculinity-ending injuries. The only time fear seemed to be prevalent was when the time was approaching for their departure.

Marines acknowledged that they understood they were joining to learn how to kill legally, and craved the “thrill of battle.” Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “There is nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed.” Mostly they were inspired by the brotherhood of soldiers fighting beside one another. That inspired their “gung-ho” attitude, despite the fact that phrase originated with a Chinese expression that means “all together.” Some readers would undoubtedly be put off by descriptions of satisfaction from seeing the “pink mist” created when a bullet passes through the body of an enemy.

There is an interesting footnote that the Continental Congress ordered Samuel Nicholas to organize two battalions of Marines on November 10, 1775. Nicholas began his recruiting in Philadelphia’s Tun Tavern. “Marines are very proud that the Corps was born in a bar.”

The book describes the language of Marines. Discussions with one another would often be considered coarsely obscene and degrading to an outsider. I recall one fire team leader thinking he should compliment his team after an especially intense day of combat. He told them, “Y’all used o be a bunch of girls, but now you’re women.” Quotes from several movies make it into the conversations of Marines preparing for battle. One was Mel Gibson’s line in Braveheart, “At least we don’t get dressed up for nutin’.”

The first assignment of the Marines in this book was guarding “national strategic assets” at a Naval Submarine Base at Bangor Washington, home of several Trident missile submarines. The Marines “…could neither confirm nor deny that they guarded those assets.” The Marines were mostly bored and disappointed with the assignment. They were asked whether they were willing to go kill “rag heads” in what promised to be a long war. The four corporals featured in the book all raised their hands.

The book focuses on what it takes to become a Lance corporal in the Marines, which is the lowest rank authorized to wear blood stripes on the slacks of the dress uniform. “Lance corporals excel through alpha male characteristics of strength, cleverness, skill, and force of personality.” There is no doubt there are few who could meet all the requirements.

The enemies in Iraq were called “Muj,” short for Muhajideen. Friendly Iraqis were called “hajji.” The Marines were there to win the hearts “…of the hajjis while killing every Muj they could find. Separating Muj from hajji was the hard part.” There is one description of a raid on an Iraqi police station that found large amounts of the weapons and outfits worn by the Muj. There was a prolonged battle between the Marines and Muj in the area with hundreds killed. It was observed there were many fewer policemen after the battle. There was one ambush that involved insurgents firing at the Marines from two buildings opposite each other. The Marines under this intense ambush described it as a “Polish ambush,” since anyone with common sense would not position soldiers shooting across a street at one another.

The Marines had an interesting manner of dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs that were planted by insurgents. If they suspected something was an IED they would kick it hard, hoping that the force of the kick would disable the device. They noted a Harrier war plane making a bombing approach a hundred feet in the air set off numerous IEDs. The Marines then often requested low flybys by Harriers before patrolling down a street.

The daily routines of the Marine were as interesting as the descriptions of the many intense battles. The Marines rated the quality of their quarters based on the quality of privies, which ranged from “luxurious” air conditioned units to basic stinking latrines. They loved the Lamisil cream used to treat the abrasions created from wearing heavy equipment for days in the oppressive daytime heat and the frigid nights that caused them to need to spoon together to retain precious body heat. Alcohol wasn’t accessible to grunt units, so they depended on Motrin, caffeine, and nicotine. They mostly depended on one another.

I recommend this book to all adult readers; I believe it would be particularly interesting to people who never served in the military.

Blog Posting for Blood Stripes

Posted on by

I began a review of this book with the comment “This is the best book I’ve read for some time.” It provides insight into the raw and uncensored emotions of men killing and being killed in the Iraq war. I believe this book should be required reading for Presidents who might need to request war powers from Congress and those in Congress who would have to vote on such an act. People making war policy should also be reminded how the U.S. encouraged Shiites to mutiny against Saddam Hussein in 1991, and that we did not give their mutiny any support. Thousands were tortured and killed. More than a decade later we invaded and the Shiites in some areas actually did celebrate the arrival of the Marines despite the earlier abandonment by U.S. politicians.

The need for the war in Iraq has been debated endlessly, and much of that debate was going on while our soldiers were killing and being killed. The Commander-In-Chief, the Marine commanders, and all the rest of us asked that combat soldiers go to war with “rules of engagement.” Combat soldiers are trained kill the enemy and not to be “peace keepers” or “nation builders.”  The General commanding the Marines told them, First do no harm. The second order was “No better friend, which referred to building a common cause with the people of Iraq. The third order was “No worse enemy.” The first two orders had nothing to do with Marine training. The last order finally arrived at what Marines are trained to do, “…if some bastard wants to fight, hunt him down and kill him (or her) before they do the same to you.” I think we somehow cobbled together things expected of the State Department and combat soldiers and expected young soldiers to figure it out. From what I read they somehow did an amazingly fine job.

kThe enemies of the Marines were fighting came from diverse backgrounds. They included religious fanatics, young single men, men with large families, mercenaries, and poor farmers who believed they were fighting to defend their village. One of them mentioned the movie Braveheart, and that portrayal of the fight for freedom.

For those who insist Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, Lebanese journalist Zaki Chehab was embedded with the insurgents. His chronicle, Inside the Resistance: The Iraqi Insurgency and the Future of the Middle East, describes men claiming to be part of Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq which began opening terrorist training camps in Iraq “…shortly after the post-9/11 American attack into Afghanistan.” Zarqawi had originally fled to Iran and then to the Iraqi Kurdish mountains. He established a route through Iran to smuggle personnel and equipment from Afghanistan. “By the fall of 2002, the Al Qaeda Underground Railroad was running full steam—from Afghanistan, through Iran, and into a northern Iraqi hideout.”

We also sent soldiers to fight in a war that we only noticed on occasion when watching news clips of politicians arguing with each other about the war. The lives of average Americans who did not have someone close to them fighting in the heat, filth, and fear of the battlegrounds in Iraq were unaffected. The Marines acknowledged that they joined because they were promised the chance to kill legally, but were envious of the free and fun lives of the young people who hadn’t joined. One of them asked, “Don’t these people give a shit that we’re at war?”

I admit I worried about soldiers in the book who were described as “addicted to battle,” or those who felt satisfaction when they saw the “pink mist” created as their bullet passed through an enemy. However, we were the ones who put them there, and we must be thankful there are men such as these. George Orwell, the famous writer who did fight in combat in the Spanish Civil War, once wrote something to the effect that “People sleep soundly because there are rough men willing to do violence to protect them.” I would substitute “brave” for “rough.”

Marine grunts looked down on anyone who was not a Marine grunt. They called everyone outside that category Persons Other than Actual Grunts, or POAG. The acronym evolved into the word “pogue.” Everyone in the Marines not in combat units, everyone in the Navy, Army, and Air Force were pogues. Anyone who never wore a uniform was the worst kind of pogue. If I would have the honor of meeting one of the Marines portrayed in the book I would ask for my Army comrades who served in combat roles in Vietnam to be excluded from that description.

There was a Marine Chaplin who told the survivors that they would have to deal with the guilt for surviving while others did not. I understand that. A quote at the beginning of Chapter 15 is “Freedom isn’t free, but the U.S. military will pay your part of it.” The Marines who survived would deal not only with the guilt of surviving but also the loss of “…the purity of being surrounded by a group of men who, whether they loved or hated them, were devoted to giving their blood, seat, and lives for the same of their mission or their Corps.”

The book observes that victory will not come from the service and sacrifice of the soldiers who fought in Iraq. That will happen, if it happens, within the culture of Islam. The soldiers have only functioned as the soil for the seed of freedom. The ultimate victory, if it is achieved must happen within Islam.

One of the corporals was scheduled for a DUI trial, and the female judge opened the hearing by reading the award citation for his service in Iraq. The judge didn’t finish reading the entire citation, and later said she couldn’t finish because she realized she was being overcome with emotion. She simply ended the reading and announced, “Case Dismissed.” Reading that brought tears to my eyes.

“H-Money,” one of the interpreters for the battalion continued to carry a sniper rifle and “fought like a lion.” Fatima, another interpreter, made it to the U.S. and was working on becoming a citizen.”Muhammad remains alive and continues to fight Americans. Most expect this kind of war to go on for many, many years.”